NSA Defender Rep. Mike Pompeo Attacks SXSW With Ignorant Misleading Diatribe For Having Ed Snowden Speak
from the no-free-speech dept
As you may have heard, Ed Snowden is speaking at the famed SXSW conference this morning (by videoconference, obviously). It got a fair bit of attention when it was announced, in part because, so far, Snowden has been incredibly reticent to speak out publicly over everything he's been involved in. He has done so on a few occasions, including last week for the EU Parliament, but for the most part he has avoided all of the typical TV interviews and the like.You may also know that there are some people who don't like Ed Snowden very much. One of those is Rep. Mike Pompeo, one of Rep. Mike Rogers' key attack dogs on the House Intelligence Committee. You may remember that back when Rep. Justin Amash was trying to defund the NSA's bulk metadata program, that Pompeo was the sponsor of the "competing bill" to try to trick Reps. into supporting reform that actually further allowed the NSA to continue. Pompeo also believes that spying on all American citizens by collecting their metadata is the way "our government is supposed to operate."
So, as you might imagine, Pompeo is not particularly happy with Ed Snowden. And he seems particularly livid at SXSW for allowing Snowden to speak there. Pompeo sent the conference organizers a letter so full of misleading statements to flat out lies, condemning their decision to invite Snowden, and asking them to cancel Snowden, that it makes you wonder just what Pompeo is so afraid of. Since when is a little free speech so scary?
Let's dive in and look at some of the lies and misleading claims from the letter:
I share your passion for educating the American public on the intersection of civil liberties and technology, but I am deeply troubled to learn that you have invited Edward Snowden to address SXSW on privacy, surveillance, and online monitoring in the United States. Certainly an organization of your caliber can attract experts on these topics with knowledge superior to a man was hired as a systems administrator and whose only apparent qualification is his willingness to steal from his own government and then flee to that beacon of First Amendment freedoms, the Russia of Vladimir Putin.Kicking it off on a high note. First of all, given his previous statements, I'm skeptical that Pompeo actually gives two shits about anyone's civil liberties, but frankly, I'm much more "deeply troubled" by an elected US official sending a letter on Congressional stationery, trying to influence who can and who cannot speak at a conference. That screams of intimidation by the federal government.
Furthermore, the whole "fled to Russia" myth has been debunked so many times it just makes Pompeo look foolish to bring it up again. Snowden didn't flee to Russia. He ended up being stuck there because the US government pulled his passport while he was enroute elsewhere, via Russia. Furthermore, the idea that Snowden is somehow unqualified to discuss US surveillance on its own people is simply crazy. It is difficult to think of anyone more qualified. Even many of his detractors begrudgingly are willing to admit that Snowden has helped kick off this big debate we're having.
Mr. Snowden's appearance would stamp the imprimatur of your fine organization on a man who ill deserves such accolades. Rewarding Mr. Snowden's behavior in this way encourages the very lawlessness he exhibited. Such the ongoing intentional distortion of truth that he and his media enablers have engaged in since the release of these documents--undermines the very fairness and freedom that SXSW and the ACLU purport to foster. I strongly urge you to withdraw this invitation.I don't think Snowden's appearance at SXSW makes one iota of difference in terms of encouraging or discouraging others. Nor do I think that without SXSW's "imprimatur" anyone thinks any less of Snowden. That whole argument makes no sense. Furthermore, for Pompeo to call some of the best journalists in the world "media enablers" is just sickening. It's taking a page from the playbook of his buddy Mike Rogers.
Furthermore, a very large percentage of the American public see Snowden as a whistleblower, which actually is the kind of activity that we should wish to encourage.
In case you did not have access to the full facts in making your initial decision to extend your invitation, I want to call a few undisputed facts about the actions taken by Mr. Snowden to your attention:Warning: when someone like Pompeo announces he's going to highlight "undisputed facts," you can bet pretty strongly that what he's about to describe are neither undisputed, nor facts.
The overwhelming majority of the materials stolen had nothing to do with the privacy of U.S. personsAlmost none of the above is accurate. The claim about him taking other information is based on the faulty assumption in a DOD report that every document that Snowden "touched" he took. Snowden, from the very beginning, made it clear that he carefully went through documents and removed those that he thought should remain classified. Second, government officials have repeatedly stated that there is no evidence that Snowden gave those documents to officials in other countries. For Pompeo to argue that this is an "undisputed fact" is laughable. Finally, the whole "put lives at risk" thing is again totally unsubstantiated. It's the same argument that government officials have repeatedly made in response to leaks. They said it about Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. They said it about Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks, and now they're claiming it about Snowden. Every time they've eventually had to admit the claims were bogus.
Only a tiny sliver of the materials stolen by Mr. Snowden had anything to do with United States telecommunications or the privacy rights of Americans. Rather, the majority of the material taken, now in the hands of other countries, provides detailed information about America's intelligence sources and methods. By divulging this information, Mr. Snowden has put the lives of our soldiers, sailors and airmen at risk--in addition to the lives of the people who will attend your conference.
Mr. Snowden cares more about personal fame than personal privacyAgain, this is laughable. Anyone who has followed this story has to note just how little Snowden has done "in pursuit of the limelight." He's turned down almost every media opportunity, only granting interviews to the key reporters he initially trusted. The claim that he's been continually doing interviews attacking the US is a flat out lie. That he hasn't spoken out about political dissidents in Russia is certainly a valid claim, but a meaningless one. Snowden need not fight every fight -- especially one that he has little to do with. Furthermore, if you were in his shoes, with Russia currently being the only country willing to offer him some form of asylum, it seems reasonable that you'd focus on the area of your actual expertise (US surveillance) rather than attacking the host.
Mr. Snowden's continued pursuit of the limelight has little to do with online privacy and everything to do with ensuring that he stays in the good graces of his new home nation. Once he stops doing interviews attacking America's ability to collect intelligence lawfully, he stops being useful to the Kremlin. This helps to explain why, since arriving in Moscow single word about the number of political dissidents jailed in Russia or about Russia's suspected state-sponsored cyber-attacks against other countries and private entities.
Mr. Snowden gives real whistleblowers a bad nameThis is not true. Snowden has repeatedly talked about how he went to his superiors and colleagues and told them of his concerns. Meanwhile, just a few weeks ago, the NSA's Inspector General made it clear that if Snowden had gone to him, he would have done nothing to fix things, but rather attacked Snowden. The idea that going to the Inspector General was a realistic option is laughable. And going to Congress? Who would he have gone to? You, Rep. Pompeo? Yeah, right.
Mr. Snowden had--and was fully aware of--multiple opportunities to correct what he perceived as unlawful practices, but he chose not to go to his superior, to Congress, to the Inspector General, or to anyone save for Russia and Team Greenwald. This fact proves that his goal was not to fix what he saw as wrong, but rather to inflict harm upon the very nation that provided him with the rights he chose not to exercise. He is no more a whistleblower than were Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold.
Pompeo is simply out of step with the American public, a very large percentage of whom see Snowden as a whistleblower. The fact that two separate government review boards have each found the NSA metadata collection program problematic, to potentially illegal and unconstitutional and the President has committed to changing the program sorta confirms that he was, in fact, a whistleblower -- and that his other "options" would not have worked.
Finally, the fact that Snowden went to the press rather than dead end options that would have gotten himself labeled a "troublemaker" somehow proves he wanted to harm the US? How so? That makes no sense. It's just Pompeo spouting nonsense.
When I served in the Army along the Iron Curtain we had a word for a person who absconds with information and provides it to another nation: traitor. We also had a name for a person who chooses to reveal secrets he had personally promised to protect: common criminal. Mr. Snowden is both a traitor and a common criminal.Again, Snowden didn't provide information to "another nation." He provided it to the press, so that the American public could learn about it. Pompeo might also want to familiarize himself with the official definition of treason. Also, I'm curious if this elected member of the legislative branch can possibly point to what criminal statute says that revealing information you promised not to reveal makes you a criminal?
While reasonable people can and should disagree on major policy issues in a free society, Mr. Snowden has, through his own actions, demonstrated he has no interest in contributing to a free society, choosing instead to live in Russia--a country in which political dissidents are jailed and individual rights have not been respected since at least 1917. The ACLU, which is moderating this panel, would surely concede that freedom of expression for Mr. Snowden has declined since he departed American soil.He didn't choose to live in Russia. Why must Pompeo lie?
As the Russians work to reestablish their empire by seizing neighboring territory and aiding the bad actors of the world such as Syria's Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah, they will no doubt take comfort in the ample information Mr. Snowden can provide them--information Mr. Snowden swore an oath to protect. Because of Mr. Snowden, our adversaries--terrorists and state actors alike--have access to our intelligence sources and methods. This security breach has degraded and will continue to hamper America's and our allies' efforts to fight terrorism, cybercrime, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.As has been pointed out by former CIA guy Barry Eisler, Snowden did not break his "oath." The "oath" you sign is to protect the Constitution, not to protect secrecy. And, as has been pointed out plenty of times, the fear mongering about adversaries having access to "sources and methods" is quite overblown. Of the things revealed to date, while many are shocking for how far the NSA goes to get access to information, none of them are likely to surprise or concern actual adversaries, who were taking precautions a decade ago against the possibility of all of these things.
In fact, almost nothing revealed to date is likely to have changed terrorists' communications. Instead, it's created fear and uncertainty among innocent people around the globe, including American citizens -- the ones who Pompeo is supposed to be defending, but Pompeo is defending the surveillance state.
Mr. Snowden has absconded with sensitive national security information that goes well beyond programs potentially related to privacy, yet the American press makes it sound as though he only sought to reveal a few NSA programs. Even more damning is his willingness to put American soldiers' lives at risk, as he may have revealed where our troops are stationed. Surely that privacy interest deserved respect too.Again, as noted earlier, this is no indication to date that Snowden revealed any such information. That's all conjecture on Pompeo's part. Yet he claims this is an "undisputed fact"? He's lying.
We must protect the very things that make America so special--most certainly including our civil liberties. But we cannot do so without strong national security and a thoughtful and informed discourse.Until Snowden blew the whistle there was no discourse on this issue. Now there's a wide-ranging one.
This discourse is undermined when a music, film, and interactive conference and festival provides a venue to an at-large criminal who has refused extradition to answer for his crimes in court. His presence will not advance the debate; it will merely create a circus. Mr. Snowden doesn't need a softball interview. What Mr. Snowden needs is to present himself, in the finest tradition of American protest and courage, to a court of law that will adjudge his actions.The idea that Snowden has no part in the discussion that he kicked off is so ridiculous as it boggles the mind that Pompeo thinks anyone will take this letter seriously. As for his ability to "present himself" to a court of law, well, under the law the DOJ has charged him under, he is barred from presenting evidence that he is a whistleblower. That's hardly a fair trial. Having seen how Chelsea Manning was railroaded in her trial, Snowden made the only reasonable decision, which was to make sure he was out of the country when this story broke, and not subject to being tortured by the US government, as Manning was.
As your organization makes its decision about how best to exercise its cherished First Amendment freedoms, it may choose to proceed with granting Mr. Snowden this undeserved opportunity to pretend to speak for "the protection of American privacy." If so, I hope you will at least do what no journalist has yet had the courage or competence to do and ask Mr. Snowden a few pertinent questions:Oh boy. Here they come. Let's be helpful and answer them for Pompeo, who appears to have ignored the fact that nearly all these questions have been answered already:
What is Mr. Snowden's relationship with Russia, financial or otherwise? Has he ever received money or other compensation from Russia, in cash or in-kind, and will he provide bank statements to support his answer to this question?To date, Snowden has denied any relationship with Russia, as have the Russians. More importantly, so have US intelligence officials. Multiple times.
Why, instead of going to the Inspector General at his agency or a Member of Congress, did Mr. Snowden go to Russia with several stolen laptops full of Americans' data?Already discussed above. Given how Pompeo himself is bloviating in this letter, it seems rather obvious why he didn't go to Congress. How would that have done any good? And we already described how the NSA's Inspector General has made it clear that he wouldn't have helped Snowden at all. Furthermore, as was revealed ages ago, the laptops never had any information on them. They were empty laptops. Finally, as stated above repeatedly, Snowden did not choose Russia. The US did -- by pulling his passport while he was traveling via Russia.
If he believes he did the right thing, why is he not willing to come back to the U.S. to face the consequences for his actions?Because the law he is charged under prevents him from making the case that he did the right thing.
Why should the audience at SXSW find credible a man who broke his oaths and deliberately deceived not only his employer, but his country, in order to commit a theft?Again, he didn't break his oath, which was to the Constitution, not to secrecy.
Thank you for considering this request to withdraw your invitation to Edward Snowden. I would be happy to speak with you further about why I have made it, at your convenience.We know why you made it. What would be better, however, is if Rep. Pompeo could explain why almost every one of his "undisputed facts" are either lies or very much disputed? Furthermore, if he could explain why a government official is browbeating a conference in an attempt to silence an important discussion by a person perhaps most qualified to lead that discussion?
Somehow, I doubt we'll hear any answers from Rep. Pompeo. However, I expect Snowden's discussion later today will be quite interesting.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: edward snowden, free speech, mike pompeo, nsa, sxsw
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is Mr Pompeo's relationship with the big military and security corporations, financial or otherwise? Has he ever received money or other compensation from any lobbying effort, in cash or in-kind, and will he provide bank statements to support his answer to this question?
Why should the audience at SXSW find credible a letter from a man who broke his oaths [towards upholding the Constitution] and deliberately deceived not only his employer, but his country, in order to protect unconstitutional programs?
If he ever flees the country when the people ask for the heads of those who are undermining the Constitution then I can add 2 more questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I am demanding you not let him speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think someone needs to do more proofreading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think someone needs to do more proofreading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think someone needs to do more proofreading
Do you mean people like me, or the buffoons in Hollywood, Washington, and other such? Cause when all you do to differentiate is capitalization for emphasis?
Sorry, those words between the lines sure are blurry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think someone needs to do more proofreading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just love how our elected representatives are under the self delusion that the U.S. Government owns anything. They don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who makes Who look bad?
I'd posit that Rep. Mike Pompeo gives real Americans a bad name.
I mean this guy is worse for our image than I was, in checked shorts, a striped shirt and a camera with a giant lens when I was playing tourist in the UK and France all those years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who makes Who look bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
imprimatur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: imprimatur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: imprimatur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all i read here was the biggest load of bollocks going, all trying to condemn what Snowden did, while condoning the action of the USA government and the NSA!
one question to everyone else that it concerns: how the hell did this prick get elected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As opposed to the lawlessness exhibited by NSA which he is revealing, along with showing the failures of congressional oversight which reflects badly on Mike Pompeo and friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.facebook.com/pompeoforcongress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I would do if I were running SXSW...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't see how one can "bear true faith and allegiance" to a document without adhering to the rules of said document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you throw a dart in congress while blindfolded you will likely hit one of these assclowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encouragement
Yes. So it seems like Pompeo, dumb as he seems to be, got at least one thing right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Pompeo managed even to mix Hezbollah along Snowden!
With all due respect, Mr Pompeo is not quite a rocket scientist.
This is an indication that he is just a front man recycling someone elses propaganda.
As to Mr Popmeo's questions, these are legitimate, but already answered. He would have known, had he followed the news.
Beside, who cares if they invited Snowden to speak? They don't object to Mr Pompeo's own lobbyists-guests, do they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, yes, it's pretty clear that large number of Americans are glad he blew the whistle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why does Pompeo HATE America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why does Pompeo HATE America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why does Pompeo HATE America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why does Pompeo HATE America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least he got one thing right
If any of the other statements Pompeo made, was true and provable I doubt very much they would have waited 1 second before releasing said proof to the public.
These people wonder why we see Snowden as a hero... in my case it's simply because so far as anyone can tell, Snowden has only spoken the truth and the people representing the government have only spoken lies and slander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
When Pompeo served in the Army along the Iron Curtain, they also had a word for someone who, at the risk of their life, tried to expose the secrets of a tyrannical regime: defector. Defectors were only referred to as traitors by "that beacon of First Amendment freedoms", Soviet Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Embarrassing typo
Please fix this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pompeo's death threat against SXSW attendees
Just because you put a "Simon says" around a threat doesn't mean it didn't come from you.
Well, now is Pompeo then putting out a death threat against all SXSW attendees while trying to pin it on Snowden? Seems plausble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't believe this asshole is representing my state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't believe this asshole is representing my state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't believe this asshole is representing my state
Do it anyway. It may be mostly pointless, but it's also easy and painless. Congresspeople do keep track of what their constituents think, and that can sometimes have a surprising effect. You never know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't believe this asshole is representing my state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this asshole is representing my state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this asshole is representing my state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, oddly enough, it seems politicians have generally been rather tight-lipped about Jonathan Pollard and his supporters, despite his "leaks" reportedly leading to the arrest and execution of several Soviet dissidents and CIA operatives.
Is there something about Snowden that makes him so much worse than Jonathan Pollard? (Or for that matter, is there something about Glenn Greenwald that makes him so much worse than Daniel Ellsberg?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, he makes Congress and the Intelligence committee look bad in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
inb4 antisemitism, no, fuck you, don't you dare play that card, I'm playing in a band with 2 jews, they also don't like Israel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What isn't addressed in all this was exactly when did the US government plan to tell the public what it has been doing in their names? Never is the first word that comes to mind.
To date nothing from anyone representing the NSA nor it's supporters has shown the public the ability to come clean and admit the breaking of constitutional law. We've had every demonstration of exactly the opposite.
This isn't going to go away. It's not going to blow over. It is time for the government to own up to it's acts and fess up to it's willing breaking of the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oath
> Snowden did not break his "oath." The "oath" you sign
> is to protect the Constitution, not to protect secrecy.
Actually, this is not quite true. The general oath that all government employees take is to protect and defend the Constitution, however, when you are read into a classified program, you take and sign a separate oath, which does indeed include a promise to never divulge or make public the information you have access to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oath
So in short, any Oath you take that is in contravention of the Constitution is null and void where applicable. Realize the utter depravity of the Human Race and all the dishonesty and voided integrity that is necessary for the Government to Operate this way and ask if the future looks bleak or promising?
The promise of a new future looks better through hot flying lead lenses right now. Perhaps the Repukes will put up a non-worthless candidate this year? If not, I would prefer Obama for even a 3rd term until people finally figure out how stupid we all are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oath
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oath
Which oath takes precedence in a case like this where they are at odds?
I would like to say it's the Constitutional one, but it doesn't seem to work out that way in real life does it? The secrecy one is the one with real penalties for not upholding it. Should be the other way around IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oath
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't get a "harrumph" outta' that guy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I didn't get a "harrumph" outta' that guy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Checked a mirror lately?
The current oath was enacted in 1884.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Helping an organization that is actively undermining at least the Fourth Admenment to the US Constitution is a violation of this oath. That would make it a domestic enemy. So who's the real traitor here? We all know you have no clothes on under that flag you wear and defile all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Checked a mirror lately?
The current congressional oath was enacted in 1884.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about a river of lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I strongly suggest you look in the mirror first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Degrade, Deny, Disrupt, Deceive
Way to play straight from the "Disruption Operation Playbook" Mikey
I would like to say Mikey is a piece of shit, but I can't, because shit has a beneficial use as fertilizer.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
I love the fact that of all I comments I read on here and other sites, that the people aren't buying any of these bullshit arguments that these traitorous shills for the Intelligence Industrial Complex are trying to dish out. It makes me proud to be an American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Degrade, Deny, Disrupt, Deceive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frustrating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]